The Vatican II view of Salvation almost comes out and makes a Protestant-esque distinction between *Justification* (Forensic; Work of Christ alone; Determinant for how you get into Heaven) and *Sanctification* (Participatory; Cooperation with Grace; Determinant for Levels of Heaven / Time spent in Purgatory)... ... Almost, but it's muddled with trying to still hold continuity with Trent.
Modern Rome is struggling to maintain tension between Old Rome (Trent) and New Rome (quasi-Lutheran) -- they will never be logically consistent as long as they maintain an infallibility that makes it impossible to admit that they messed up in the past. It's like gaslighting. They're constantly changing the story and hoping no one notices and presenting it like they've always been the V2 Church.
I also find the interaction between the sedevacantists and the conservative Catholics in the new church. The sedes recognize the changes are a break. So since Rome is true, the pope must be a heretic. The conservative Catholics realize that the sede position would mean Rome would have been invalidated. Both are correct and both are wrong. There have been changes and this does mean the Roman Catholic system has been falsified.
While I agree Rome has issues reconciling its current self to its old teachings, I don't think this phenomena is any different from any other form of Protestantism including Lutheranism. There are multiple competing groups even within the same denomination for influence that say they offer the "true" apostolic teaching that is "bible based". Rome seems a little more disingenuous since they say they are united under the pope but are clearly in the middle of a civil war trying to reconcile V2 (one conservative Catholics seem to be losing especially under Pope Francis). Protestants at least recognize their differences but choose to break from each other when disagreements on doctrine are too large. But what then is a Christian really to do? Choose a camp and hope for the best?
What is one example where you say “Old Rome” and “New Rome” are in tension. In the context of the Trent decree on justification of that is one of them.
I was looking at Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2, and he was arguing against Catholics who thought the text was about initial salvation. Would that be different than initial justification? Also, I wanted to follow up with your Bellarmine references. If you have them, could you share what work you're going off of? Thanks.
ReasonandTheology made this exact argumemt when in conversation with Rev. Wolfmueller. I.e., any Holy Father who speaks of Justification in the way of the Lutheran Confession refers to Initial Justification.
It's ironic how so many protestants are drawn to the magisterial authority of Rome, assuming that it will grant some sort of utopian unity and immutable consistency, when in actuality, the Pope scarcely ever speaks infallibly, doctrine can develop, and we have hardly any authoritative interpretations of scripture...
So what do you suggest then? That everybody should pick up the Bible and start making up doctrines as they go? See, what you said, anyone can say... should we stay with the Lutheran teaching and hold on to it as infalible? Can we read the Bible, just go to a free evangelical church and assume we interpret the Bible infalible at home? Please...
Is one of the areas of misunderstanding that Trent had collapsed the coram mundu--coram deo realities? So the idea that apart from faith man can do no good sounded to them like an absolute statement denying the reality of Civic Righteousness (or the same problem with Civic Reason, etc)
It is funny. The channel “Reason and Theology” did an episode to answer or critique of your episode demonstrating the changing stance of the Roman Church. (The episode where you point toward the councils which call for the Inquisition and which condemned and executed Hus, Papal Bulls, and the current Pope’s stand on execution.) He did exactly what you stated is a frustration addressing these issues with the Roman church. He would say a Bull isn’t really authoritative, etc. And addressing the Councils, he never really addressed the points you raised. Finally he was fond of moving the goalposts and borderline ad hominem.
What about Chapter 8 where Trent says that nothing that precedes justification merits it? Does this make Trent self-contradictory in your view? Asking as a curious evangelical. Thanks for your great channel!
Can you recommend a specific document or section from Bellarmine that would demonstrate his position on initial justification as-per Trent, in his own words? We're discussing your video on Christcord, and you mention Bellarmine multiple times, but I'm not sure where to look in his writings to find that position.
@@ChristianCombatives I would very much appreciate getting that quote. When you get it, could you please reply to this comment here so I can see it? Thanks.
Dr. Cooper, you really should talk to a Catholic Theologian or someone who knows a lot about Catholic theology (e.g. Dr. Christopher Malloy, Michael Barber, Brant Pitre, or the guys at Reason and Theology). I think it would go a long way for helping clear things up for your audience. As a former Lutheran myself, I truly hope that Lutherans and Catholics continue dialoging with each other on TH-cam (and other popular modern media) so that we can better understand each other. Unfortunately, there are many nuances and distinctions that you seem to want to make with Lutheran positions that you are not willing to try and afford/understand in Catholic teaching. I think a dialogue would go along way to help clear up some of the misunderstanding that you have here. Just for one instance, you say the initial justification position isn't in Trent. But this is also from the Council of Trent and to me seems to be teaching a completely gratuitous initial justification: CHAPTER VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously. And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6). Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 8 Here is Trent teaching on ongoing justification after the initial justification. NOTE: the key to unlocking Catholic theology is that everything is grace; the beginning of justification (initial conversion), the middle (ongoing justification), and the end (final judgement/justification). Jesus is the source of this life of grace and apart from him, we can do nothing (John 15:5). Jesus Christ himself continually infuses strength into the justified, as... the vine into the branches (John 15:5); this strength always precedes, accompanies, and follows their good works, which, without it, could in no way be pleasing to God and meritorious. Therefore, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified for them to be regarded as having entirely fulfilled the divine law in their present condition by the works they have done in the sight of god; they can also be regarded as having truly merited eternal life, which they will obtain in due time, provided they die in a state of grace (cf. Rev 14:3)... Thus, neither is our justice considered as coming from us (2 Cor 3:5), nor is God’s justice disregarded or denied (Rom 10:3); for the justice that is said to be ours because we become just by its inheritance in us is that of God himself, since it is infused in us by God through the merit of Christ... Nevertheless, a Christian should never rely on himself or glory in himself instead of in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17), whose goodness toward all men is such that he wants his own gifts to be their merits. Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 16 Because this sanctifying grace that is infused into us is the formal cause of justification, this is why Trent can rightly speak of justification increasing over time. It is another way to say we grow in grace throughout our lives when we cooperate with God and do good works. Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity." Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 10 This is what I also see in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church: CCC 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. CCC 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. "If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.) God bless!
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I certainly don't want to downplay the commonalities between our traditions on points that are rather significant, such as the contention that we cannot merit our entrance into a state of grace. And yes, I recognize that according to Trent (and the CCC) that justification does begin without any merit on our part. However, even at that point, there is a kind of human willing/cooperation which is necessary for this initial reception of the grace of justification, as is evidenced by the rejection of passivity in justification expressed in the Canons discussed here. It it of historical note that some figures like Reginald Pole and Cardinal Contarini *did* propose a notion of sola fide for initial justification which also coincided with a continual growth in justification through inherent grace at Trent. Yet, the council rejected these proposals.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for the response, Dr. Cooper. I think you Dr. Malloy would have a very interesting conversation if you were able to sit down and go over some of the ideas in Trent and their historical development. You have heard me recommend his book "Engrafted into Christ" before. He seems to understand the Lutheran ideas that were circulating at the time very well and also seems to make a very compelling case that Trent is simply reaffirming Catholic views of justification that have always been held in the Church. Thanks again and God bless!
@@DrJordanBCooper If I recall correctly, neither Pole's and Contarini's proposals for validating the language of Sola Fide would exclude neither the role of baptism nor the role for the human will in initial justification, and still required that sacrament of confession after committing mortal sin. That's the Tridentine doctrine in all but name, although it concedes the language of Sola Fide (in a way that would have been helpful for ecumenism and for taking seriously the use of the phrase in the church fathers, but not for future catechesis). That's a very similar to the move Benedict XVI made, when he said in his landmark Angelus address: "For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love." I could be wrong about Pole and Contarini, though. I loaned out my copy of Reformers in the Wings a few years ago and never got it back.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper Dr. Jordan B Cooper Re: passivity. If the will is purely passive in conversion then isn’t it incoherent to call it a change of the will? You only know a change in will by its activity-just as with a change in intentionality. It’s nonsensical to assert that, for example, God put a thought of a pink elephant in my mind but I didn’t think of it until afterwards. Isn’t the passive/active distinction you make akin to saying God changes our minds but we don’t change our minds (until after he changes our minds?) Frankly, that’s ridiculous and makes a hash of language. I’m frustrated now because I’ve been rather convinced of Lutheranism lately.
@@severalstories3420 Greetings! I think you are asking a very good question here. One thing I would suggest is to make sure you take the time to explore this question of the role of man's cooperation in justification from both the Lutheran and Catholic sides. At one time, I also held to a very Lutheran monergistic view of justification. Once I started to understand the Catholic position more, I realized that they also teach a kind of monergism that can affirm all the places in the Bible that show God is taking the initiative in our conversion, that faith is entirely a gift from God (Council of Trent Session VI. CHAPTER VIII), and there is no merit on the part of the person in assenting to the call from God in conversion. Catholics can also affirm the many places in the Bible that plainly speak about our freedom of choice in responding to the promptings of God to repentance and conversion. I now feel that the bondage of the will type view of Luther is much more a philosophical presupposition that is read into scriptures to try and make the sola fide paradigm work, rather than something that is explicitly taught in scriptures or makes any sense philosophically. I feel like the Catholic system is also much more inline with the historical Church, such as what St. Augustine says here: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). See what you think as you learn read up on it more. I do highly recommend the book I mentioned above, "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job potraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions. If interested, see my blog posts here for more too: www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/ God bless!
I found this discussion most useful and helpful, however, to summarise the whole belief, what is the roman catholic view on justification? is it by faith alone, following from Luther's ideas, justification by works or by both faith and works? I am trying to write up an essay about the different beliefs, taken from Luther's perspective and the RCC's perspective but the similarities and differences are so confusing. Also, which argument/belief do you consider to be stronger with better reasoning than the other? Thanks again @Dr. Jordan B Cooper
If one can't have assurance of heaven, how did St. Paul say that he had fought the good fight and that he had indeed kept the faith? How did he say he was torn between going to be with Christ vs. staying alive if he didn't know that he was currently in a state of grace? Furthermore, it's amazing to consider that if the Roman Catholic Church actually consistently applied Trent, they'd clearly need to consider John Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Ambrose, Basil the Great, Ambrosiaster, Hilary of Poitiers, and other Fathers to be anathema.
Wrong video. Here th-cam.com/video/E11QuYtCGyQ/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/QBTy10EG0y8/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/w-d-xo.html are more appropriate for this discussion.
Why was Paul worried about being disqualified? 1 Corinthians 9:27. Why does Paul say the Israelites that died because of their digressions in the desert and that was a warning for us, for the ones that think they stand to take heed, least they fall? 1 Corinthians 10:11-12. Where is the assurance of salvation in that? The council of Trent does not condemn all uses of the term “justified by faith alone.” It specifically says if a person says we are justified by faith alone, to mean that nothing else is required to be disposed and prepared. Canon 9. Chapters 6 and 7 I believe are the correct numbers, (it might be 5 and 6) define what is meant by prepared and disposed of our own will. The chapters basically say we must convert our hearts to God of our own free will, be baptized, repent and keep the commandments, and have faith. Basically if a person that says we are justified by faith alone, and mean antinomianisn, they are anathema, which is to say excommunicated.
@@IG88AAAand none of the reformers believed in antinomianism. This is what Paul is accused of pretty much in Romans 6. If the preaching of the gospel doesn’t initially illicit this accusation, you’re not preaching the gospel.
@@KnightFel That is precisely my point. The reformers understanding of “justified by faith alone” isn’t necessarily wrong. Pope Benedict the XVI said as much.
@@KnightFel “If the preaching of the gospel doesn't initially illicit this accusation, you're not preaching the gospel.” Can you support this argument?
Luther's position in TBOTW is that God wills everything that happens as He is omnipotent, and therefore He has perfect foreknowledge. Luther affirmed the necessitating foreknowledge of God in that what He foreknows has to happen. Therefore Luther argued that free will doesn't exist. However he draws a distinction between being coerced into doing something against one's will and willingly doing that which God foreknows will occur, and he makes it plain that he is talking about the latter and not the former. He writes of Judas: "… if God foreknew that Judas would be traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor, and it was not in the power of Judas or any creature to do differently or to change his will, though he did what he did willingly and not under compulsion, but that act of will was a work of God, which he set in motion by his omnipotence, like everything else. For it is an irrefutable and self-evident proposition that God does not lie and is not deceived. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even if all the most learned men of all the centuries are so blind as to think and speak otherwise. And however much you boggle at it, your own and everyone else's conscience is convinced and compelled to say that if God is not deceived in what he foreknows, then the thing foreknown must of necessity take place ..." (Luther's Works, Vol. 33, p.185) Luther didn't agree with the position of the FOC that God doesn't will evil to occur. And of course he was correct in believing that God wills evil to occur by his hidden will, as one only has to look at the fact that God planned and predestined Christ's crucifixion to know that God wills evil to occur (Acts 2:23; 4:27,28), although of course God isn't implicated in the evil quality of the act but only in the actual occurrence of it. Luther likened God to being the rider of lame horses which go badly which isn't the fault of the rider. God doesn't of course will evil in the sense of willing and delighting in evil, but only the sense of it being necessary to occur so that it fulfills His plan in bringing about whatever He has determined must happen to serve His glory and the salvation of those He has elected to save.
Very helpful video, thanks. I had a question, what Pope are you referring to at about 34:45 in the video where you say he held to the same view as Augustine and Prosper on the will?
As someone looking into historic Protestantism and thinking about maybe converting or attending a Protestant church from Catholicism, what should I do when, where I am, there is no significant Lutheran population and/or they are not faithful to their Lutheran heritage? What kind of churches should I be looking into (which have a statistically significant population)? Presbyterian? Evangelical/Reformed Anglican? Baptist? Any help would be appreciated
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for the response. In my city Anglicans are very low church Reformed, whereas in other cities in my country they are high church liberal, so I am wondering what puts them over say Presbyterians when, at least where I am, they are basically the same just they have bishops
@@BuggyrcobraAya "ttending a Protestant church from Catholicism" Being Catholic (or Orthodox), one receives the Resurrected body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, a means for receiving his grace. In protestant denominations Anglicans included, grape juice and crackers remains just the same, nothing more. I can get the same in my kitchen. I would never leave the Catholic Church for the latter.
Although it's interesting to go through the anathemas of Trent by themselves, I think it would be more helpful to go through the anathemas in light of the positive teachings on justification in Trent. I think the positive teachings are the context in which the anathemas should be read, and without them, it's hard to have a full and accurate understanding of what Trent taught on justification.
29 minute mark. In the Lutheran view, does this cooperation or “synergy” with regards to sanctification have ANY relation or effect whatsoever on justification? Can someone not cooperating with God’s work to sanctify said to be currently or finally justified?
To deal with lutherans, is the same thing dealing with Roman Catholics, but the former is trying to search their triumph card, namely the imputation of righteousness via faith alone in the fathers. The latter, i.e the Roman Catholics, do the same type of approach, but concerning the papacy.
@@deusimperator the Augsburg Confession of faith is the written confession of the Lutheran Faith. Written to be read by anyone. It is the official teaching of the Church. If not believed and taught, then they are not truly Lutheran.
Ok Dr. J, therefore does Trent reject the reformation doctrine of grace by Faith alone ? Or do they teach another gospel at Trent to be condemned ?! Galatians 1:6 (ESV) [6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV) [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
If the Old Testament believers were saved by faith alone just as we are now, then the Holy Spirit since Pentecost works for what end in our salvation now as Christians? How are we gathered into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit and why if faith saves the same as always?
I'm not sure that its fair to suggest that the reformed tradition has taken up Piper's view. I get what you're saying but its a bit frustrating because our confessions don't allow for that sort of view.
Sorry to Necro bump this, but your argument about inventing categories that are impervious to critique makes me think of Friday. "What about the time he tried to choke me in Smoke's back yard?" "Oh that was different." Why anybody willingly becomes Roman Catholic amazes me. I was raised in that tradition and I have never in over 30 years since leaving considered going back.
Galatians 2:16 speaks of works of the law. What law? Galatians 3:17 says the law came 430 years after Abraham. It is talking about the law of Moses, and specifically circumcision. All this to say, the council of Trent chapter 1 teaches we are not justified by works of the law.
@@debraforsythe7296 I would add that the council of Trent nowhere says that both faith and works are necessary to receive justification. This is explicitly stated in chapter 8.
Please, let's not fool ourselves. Of course Rome is clearly and adamantly semi-pelagian. Semi-pelagianism says that man starts his salvation and God completes it. What is the essence of this theory? That man's free will contributes in his salvation. On this ground, we can say that Rome is not semi-pelagian within the narrow context of it, although in the essence of the term, it is. It is a delicate semi-pelagianism. Free will is always there, intact, holy and strong. In order to overcome the problem, they said that there is something called prevenient grace. This is the only difference. In fact, they say the same with Pelagians and Semi-pelagians but using the prevenient grace solution, they succeed not to be accused of heresy. Same is the way they follow the 95% of the protestants. The other point I want to do is that in every day life this roman teaching is lived as 100% pelagianism and semi-pelagianism, not in a straight way, but in a semi-straight way. A simple roman believer must have some knowledge of theology in order to speak about prevenient grace, otherwise, he is sure that everything in his salvation has to do with his free will and response to God's offer and law.
Hilarious how Robert Koon says that justification by faith is an innovation, and yet, I guess he does not bat an eye at the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility lol
Dr. Cooper, I have had a friend who is becoming increasingly convinced by Catholic apologetics, and has made the argument that "if Luther were present for the Council of Trent, there would not have been a split," meaning that he believes Trent to have actually made several concessions in favor of the reformers' complaints. I believe this is an argument my friend is pulling from various Catholic resources (I know he's into Pints with Aquinas). In your review of these canons, I cannot fathom Luther agreeing with the clear negation of justification by faith alone. Have you heard this argument from Catholic apologists before? Is there something I'm missing about their claim? Thank you.
I know this is 3 year old comment, but please consider googling “jimmy akin justification by faith alone” and “Jimmy akin what Catholics believe about faith and works.” I think your friend is correct and these can help clear it up for you.
@@IG88AAA Hey thanks for the input. I've actually since looked into Akin's content a bit (and have even enjoyed his mysterious world podcast). He and Trent Horn have put out resources I've found really helpful for understanding Roman Catholic views.
@@calebhickerson I am curious if you read the suggested works of Jimmy, and what you think of his take on the anathema against “justification by faith alone.”
Thanks Jordan. Basically agreed with everything here, but I would ask for clarification about the "every deed not done in faith is a sin" bit... I've heard Catholics make the same/similar distinction that you made between civil and "supernatural" righteousness. I think they believe that, and I didn't think that canon really committed them to a contrary position. Am I misunderstanding?
Problem is this. If there is literally nothing you can do to be saved. Why are not all saved? Calvinists seem to be way more consistent than Lutherans on this issue, they bite the bullet and admit that God just want some people to be saved and others damned, so then we have the “God loves everybody” closed as an option. I think what the Catholic Church means by works are what Eastern Orthodox mean, being united with God and have a share in the divine nature. But again, if you cannot do anything at all for salvation, then it would follow that those who are damned are damned because God did not choose them, and that creates all sorts of problems... Catholic doctrine has indeed developed over time, but Christ did say he would GUIDE his church into all truth.
We are not responsible for grace and salvation, but we are responsible for our sin and damnation. We can’t do anything to be saved, but we can reject the gift of salvation. If your are seeing faith and accepting Christ sacrifice as a work, than that’s a different issue all together.
The last comment there about purgatory is interesting to me. Have you interacted with the eastern view on toll houses / judgement after death? Basically the “powers of the air” convicting you and trying to drag you down. Eerily similar to Tibetan book of the dead in the sense that “remembering” the Truth in this moment of panic is what frees you
Toll houses are allegorical. The EO teach that life after death is essentially a mystery but that one can have a foretaste of heaven or hell (one's final destination after the Last Judgement).
Seriously, on the final sentence of VI:9, you're providing your own, Chemnitzian interpretation of the text. Can you provide any evidence that that's how Catholics at the time interpreted that sentence?
The Baltimore Catechism is a book that teaches the Catholic faith in a question and answer format. Today there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not in a Q&A format. It is also more through with citations and cross-references. The Council of Trent was an ecumenical Council held in the 16th century. It was the 19th ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The 1st was the Council of Nicea in 325ad and the most recent, the 21st, was the 2nd Vatican Council held from 1962-1965.
@@brucebarber4104 yes thank you, what I'm looking for is if the Council of Trent catechism and the Baltimore Catechism teach the same thing. I'm not interested in the one after Vatican II, I've already read it. Thank you for responding. 🙏
@@dalton7145, I'm not sure whether the Trent and Baltimore Catechisms are the same or different and have wondered that as well. I'll see what I can find out.
@@dalton7145, from what I found doing a search is that they are not the same. An article from 2013 in The Catholic Telegraph by Father Earl Fernandes states the following: "The Baltimore Catechism was a Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared as a result of Third Council of Baltimore. Following the Council of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, SJ, published a Small Catechism, which was translated into many languages. However, as early as 1829, the American bishops expressed a desire (not realized until 1885) for a catechism suited to the people of America. The Baltimore Catechism was the de facto text for Catholic instruction in the United States from 1885 until the late-1960s." From Wikipedia: "The Plenary Councils of Baltimore were three national meetings of Catholic bishops in the United States in 1852, 1866 and 1884 in Baltimore, Maryland." Hope this helps.God Bless.
You know, on the question of assurance of salvation, I noticed this is come up a lot. The point that Trent is making is that epistemologically, your own faculties and senses, are subject to error. I don't think anyone in their right and honest mind, as much as it can be, would ever say that they have infallible sense data and interpretation of the world around them, or even that their brain and neurons firing operate in an infallible way. This is not the same thing as the skeptical of secularism in our age and put on clear display in the matrix movies, or simulation & simulacra, that leads to fatalism, but it is actually a truth that we are and can be in error even in regards to our own salvation and state of grace and more to the point, Calvinist actually lean super heavy into this. Their language would be that we are totally depraved, but that goes too far, Calvinists end up in a position where they're trying to remain consistent by affirming total inability, the erroneous view that you can never know that you're an error and that you cannot repent from that error and turn to God unless God zaps you with some arbitrary magic pre-regeneration juice.
By saying the rejection of monergism in initial justification is a rejection of faith alone in initial justification you have effectively said that Arminians, Wesleyans, many Anglicans, Pentecostals, etc, all teach contrary to Faith Alone in initial justification
I wouldn't say that they deny sola fide. My intent here is to compare the specifically Lutheran formulation of the doctrine with Trent's. And this is a significant point of divergence, just as it would be between Lutherans and some other Protestant groups.
Maybe a cat among pidgeons, and perhaps against the good doctor, but if it's not trust alone in God's Work in Christ through the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't be 'Faith Alone'. As I understand at least. As an example: I know of someone from that arm of Christian traditions; she made a decision to give her life to Christ as a child, fell away, later joined another church, rebaptised, moved again, decided again, ended up in a lutheran church still unsure of Christ's love for her (still not looking to Jesus for salvation, but rather her own decisions). That is not faith alone in Christ's Word and Work alone, that's faith + my choice; which lead to 'saved by my decision alone' when under stress. If it's not looking to Christ alone, I feel that fallen humanity looks to itself alone; the 'navelgazing' of Original Sin. Or am I off here?
Is it not true that the Arminian/Erasmian/Weslyan doctrine all teach the heresy of free will which is the antithesis of Sola Fide grounded and founded in Scripture?
I’m a lay Catholic, currently reading through the Council of Trent, I’m on session 24, so I’m almost through it. I’m reading it taking notes and looking up corresponding bible verses; and I’m doing so without using secondary and tertiary commentary. And I am not hearing/seeing the denial of Grace nor of Faith that you seem to be hinting at. I am seeing clear statements against Luther, Lutheranism, & against Calvinism. But nothing that doesn’t confirm to my reading of the Bible or the Church Fathers (mind you I haven’t exhaustively read everything every single church father has wrote). ??
Trent is very clear that initial justification is by grace alone and that "faith is the root and foundation of all justification " . Trent is crystal clear that initial justification can not be earned or merited. Trent is clear that if it could be earned by works then grace would no longer be grace. This is all quoted in Trent
@@gradyadams2366 So lame. Google “council of Trent decree on justification.” EWTN has a good one with citations of scripture. Chapter 8 is the part referenced. It states “nothing that comes before justification, faith or works, can merit the grace of justification.” Hope this helps. Happy to answer any more questions you could have.
As a Calvinist, I think these breakdowns are awesome. Good work! Though it is pretty clear that I believe you have a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position on many of these things, it is good to understand the inconsistency in Trent when compared to the early church fathers.
The Early Church Fathers were Catholics. Most of them were bishops. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna St. Pope Clement I St. John Chysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople St. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo St. Cyprian of Carthage St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem Tertullian, bishop of Carthage St. Basil of Caesarea St. Irenaus, bishop of Lyon Pope Damasus I etc... St. Clement of Alexandria “When we hear, ‘Your faith has saved you,’ we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord” (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]). Origen “Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James” (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]). St. Cyprian “You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire, you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living” (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]). St. Aphraates “Great is the gift which he that is good has given to us. While not forcing us, and in spite of our sins he wants us to be justified. While he is in no way aided by our good works, he heals us that we may be pleasing in his sight. When we do not wish to ask of him, he is angry with us. He calls out to all of us constantly; ‘Ask and receive, and when you seek, you shall find’” (Treatises 23:48 [A.D. 336-345]). St. Gregory of Nyssa “Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith” (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]). St. John Chrysostom ” ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the b.asphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]). St. Jerome ” ‘But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.’ It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the ‘just’ man lives by faith. He implies thereby that whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees” (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]). St. Augustine ” ‘He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.’ What does this mean, ‘for our justification’? So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made yourself just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it” (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]). St. Gregory the Great “Neither faith without works nor works without faith is of any avail, except, perhaps, that works may go towards the reception of faith, just as Cornelius, before he had become one of the faithful, merited to be heard on account of his good works. From this it can be gathered that his performance of good works furthered his reception of faith” (Homilies on Ezekiel 1:9:6 [A.D. 593]).
Hello, thanks for the video - regarding whether everything apart from faith is a sin, how is it reconciled with Romans 2? "12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Is this "doing by nature what the law requires" a sin? I Just want to understand better your position.
Hi, I am one of those converts to RCC, and I thought you made some good points. In my view, the best point you have is when you address the apparent historic inconsistency of the RCC. Maybe RCC has been more inconsistent than I like? I hope to see you in a debate soon, to get more into this important topic. That said, when you read through the canons of Trent, I found myself nodding in agreement with Trent. I am not sure I have heard so much about the "initial justification", but you might be right about that. Anyway - justification is a key topic for why I have converted. The idea that you saved no matter your works does not really fit well with Scriptures or any sense of justice. I am sure you can find a lot of support for "grace/faith alone" in Paul (because he spoke to Jews who couldn't see past the Law). But Jesus spoke very clearly about works and connected it to salvation (tale of sheep/goats, parable of the talents, asked people to repent, etc). I have to admit that I view Lutheran teachings as born out of a very frustrated mind - he was obsessed by works, and therefore had to reject them altogether to get peace.
@Morten Simonsen Greetings! I am a recent-ish convert to the Catholic Church too. Justification was the topic that finally made me give up Protestantism too. I want to suggest to you that the Catholic Church is actually much more historically consistent in its presentation of justification than you may realize. The book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy is an amazing resource if you are ever interested in a deeper dive into the topic. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It is also demonstrates that the positions that Trent affirmed on justification were completely inline with the constant historic traditions of the Church. Luther's ideas on extrinsic imputed righteousness were a completely novelty. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy also does a very good job portraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions. If interested, see my blog posts here for more too (sola fide posts 2.1 - 2.4): www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/ God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Thanks, I will look into it for sure, although the justification theology of Luther lends itself (in recent years in Scandinavia) to so such blatant heresies - so it not possible for me to believe that such a theology can "function" in the long run. But I might not fully understand the Catholic view yet, so perhaps it's a good idea!
@The Hyper Augustinian Hello Hyper Augustinian! While Lutherans definitely nuance justification differently than many Protestants to include apostasy (and some form of mortal sin though there is far from consensus on what constitutes a mortal sin), there remains some very key differences between Catholics and Lutherans. My blog posts I reference above go into more detail. Here is a very brief summary. I think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran artificial separation vs. Catholic wholistic approach 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added). **Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186** The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126** These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127** In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135** I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) I hope this helps clear up why I think Lutherans and Catholics still have some very key differences in their views of justification to work through. God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Hello! I was wondering what you’re thoughts are on the veneration of icons, dulia and latria, and Nicaea 2 anathematizing those who didn’t agree. If any. God bless.
@@elijahyoung11 Hi Elijah. I haven't done much any research on the history behind icons so I apologize that I don't really have many thoughts on the matter as it pertains to ecumenical discussions. God bless!
Could you comment on the assurance article on calledtocommunion? Just search Andrew Preslar (the author) and assurance. I suck at youtube so I keep trying to send links and the comment's removed. Anyway, he directly contradicts what you have to say here about assurance; even though I'm wary of roman tendency to make distinctions without differences and say something about the richness of their "both/and" philosophy in life (with a Cheshire smile), to my mind, this one seems like a reasonable argument. Also...I don't know where you talk about this, but I can redirect the following question to another video if you'd like. It just occurred to me that there may be a problem accounting for moral blameworthiness given the Christian understanding of our sinfulness. If we could read minds, couldn't we charge every last one of us with the worst sexual and violent crimes, even daily, if our legal system better mirrored God's own? This seems untenable. Why do we even presume to charge anyone? Doesn't that make us hypocrites? And this is made worse by the Lutheran "simul peccator" teaching, it seems, since we can't even reduce the punishable crimes to the Roman Catholic distinctions about deliberately entertaining or engaging a sinful thought. For a Lutheran, everything we all do all the time deserves the capital punishment, no?
That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (III:1:2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Romans 3:24-25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Ephesians 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part III, Question 46, Article 1)
So you think this video comes to different conclusions then Gavin Ortland's view of Rome? And Mike Winger's view of Rome? Can you do a video that responds to their view of what they think Rome teaches?
God is not the author of sin. Man is both responsible and accountable for sin. However the Scriptures clearly teach that God is Sovereign over all creation and that God works all things according to his good pleasure. God is Sovereign over sin, Satan and man so that all things come to past according to God's eternal good pleasure, plan and purpose by his Providence. This is the Truth of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation but even more specifically in the life of Job and even more importantly in the Messianic prophecies concerning Christ and the fulfillment of his death on the Cross. Both the fall and Christ's work of redemption were all according to God's immutable and eternal counsel.
@Dr. Jordan Peterson The Dr. Jordan Peterson I hear on Utube is no mystic but is an intellectual. I believe in the Canon of Scripture not in mystical visions that have no Biblical foundation. I reject the visions and dreams of the false apostles and false prophets of today as heresy.
I can't speak to what the Council of Trent has said. I can speak to some of the things you have brought up. The _reason_ why we are impervious to any _attack_ is First they are wrong. Second Jesus promised His Church the gates of hell would not prevail against her (His Church), and it hasn't for these past 1,990 years with His help. It is easy to be _impervious_ to that which is not true. Some of the accusations are for the most part hypocritical. Claiming we are doing something _they_ , you are not. Or usually it isn't _Biblical_ when it is clearly in the Bible. I will give one example of Hypocritical and one of unbiblical. Hypocritical. Catholics cannot *know* they are going to heaven. Neither did St. Paul, he mentioned a race that he did not want to lose in the end. But the hypocritical part is a person who is saved and *always* saved, who *knows* they are going to heaven no matter what... is then told _"They were never really saved after all."_ You left that part out of your video though. So, this fourteen-year-old who was saved and is going to heaven was _saved_ twice more has someone say over their 62-year-old body in a coffin, "they were never *really* saved." Surprise! While a Catholic knows that sin or not sinning is his responsibility and has the help of God, to achieve this, the Help of God when he fails and can have his sins forgiven if needed (and repented unlike you where Jesus suffered and died for any number of sins you wish to perform in your future, no repentance required.) Eating the body and drinking the blood of our Lord. Well, there are plenty of passages, as you say, of this. but you ignore them claiming Jesus wasn't speaking literally, and not doing this means _you will have no life in you_ You have faith, been saved then ignore what your Lord told you to do, even though you have _accepted_ Him as your Lord. Who is unbiblical and who is not. Your problem is if you wish to do this then you have to have a _priest_ Which requires *Holy Orders,* which you deny, and without a priest you cannot believe in the Sacrament of *Confession,* so that Biblical item is also tossed out. As well as the Biblical *Holy Unction,* *Confirmation,* leaving you with only *baptism* and *marriage,* which you mess marriage up with divorce and the sidelining of God in this sacrament. 52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever. Kind of ironic that Jesus was born in a town that is called. "The house of bread".
Hello, Dr. Copper. I really appreciate your thoughtful videos and meticulous discussion of the issues. You, Pastor Wolfmueller, and the Being Lutheran podcasts hosts have been integral to my return to the faith of my baptism, LCMS. I’ve been studying Roman Catholicism the past few months, as I’m dating a wonderful woman who also happens to be a devout Roman Catholic. It’s been a blessing to discover so many areas of overlap while also discouraging to see areas of serious xisagreement. After watching so many of your videos, Reason & Theology’s videos, and videos from other Catholic apologists, I share in your frustration that Rome’s development hypothesis and endless distinctions of teaching, doctrine, dogma, etc. seem to make it IMPOSSIBLE to disprove any of their claims. While I can appreciate and, of course, want nuisance, I’m wondering at this point whether there is ANYTHING that could occur TODAY (i.e. ruling out discovery of ancient texts from apostles that states Sola Sceiptura is the truth) that would disprove Rome’s teaching on the Magisterium without also disproving Christianity as a whole (I.e. ruling out discovery of tomb with bones and sign that says “Jesus of Nazareth”). I’m increasingly convinced that even if Pope Francis were to come out tomorrow and say, “As the holy ordained leader of the Church, I declare ex cathedra that Jesus was only God, not man” (I know, dumb example), that Rome could STILL avoid contradiction by simply calling a council, further “clarifying” when the Pope is infallible, then showing that in fact the Pope wasn’t speaking infallibly and that we only needed further development of doctrine to understand things. With all this said, I’m curious what your thoughts are on Rome’s development hypothesis, in general. Is it your view that Rome can’t have ANY development because it claims to have a living, breathing Magisterium that is guided by the Holy Spirit? That seems just as untenable to me as the sort of seemingly circular reasoning I see in Catholic videos that goes, “Magisterium is infallible, there is appears to be a contradiction in teaching, therefore we need clarification of doctrine that shows there actually isn’t a contradiction.” Thoughts?
Just wanted to mention that I too was a Lutheran dating a devout Catholic some time ago. It's a tricky situation and I can relate to discovering areas of overlap and disagreement. Wish you all the best!
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 Thanks! I appreciate the advice you shared and, well, your sympathy haha. Those are good questions to ask and ones that I’ve added to the seemingly endless list of things to clarify before making a decision. God bless!
Hi there! I’m a former LCMS convert to Catholicism, and I’d like to encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing with studying Catholicism. Even if you are just trying to prove Catholicism false. It doesn’t hurt to study it anyways. I tried really hard to prove to myself that Catholicism was false, and realized it was the truth and ended up converting in the end 😉. This is not meant to be confrontational in any way. Take care and God bless!
@@bethanyann1060 I think it's interesting how people dive into apologetics looking for the most historically and theologically consistent form of Christianity, and then some end up converting based on their conclusions that X tradition is more consistent than Y. I think there often comes a point, however, when people realize that *all* traditions have consistency problems to various degrees -- and these internal discrepancies are precisely what allows apologetics to exist. It's an interesting realization.
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 Yes, I see your point. We will find dissenting views here and there in any case, but ultimately the question is, who has the authority to determine which views are correct?
Biggest issue is the false priesthood, and administration of a “sacrifice” at mass, Literal body and blood of Jesus Christ being present in the Mass. Jesus offered Himself one time for all, and sat down at the right hand of God. Lies offered by liars.
It is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice. Jesus is our Paschal Lamb. 1 Corinthians 5:7, John 1:29. The Old Testament Passover sacrifice had to be eaten as part of the sacrifice. Exodus 12:8. The blood of the covenant was applied to the people. Exodus 24:8. The blood of the new covenant is given through the cup, as Jesus gave to the disciples. Luke 22:20.
@@DrJordanBCooper Well, I do find that I agree with the Westminster Confession in a broad sense, but there are also many things about Lutheranism that I like. And I really enjoy your content.
AT 30:00, when discussing the Roman view being inconsistent with the Patristic view, I'd like to see any father pre-Augustine, much less any ante-Nicean father be used as a source. Ken Wilson, one of the leading Augustine scholars today, states emphatically that he was the first to teach anything resembling his view of predestination, which would include the unconditional monergistic conversion model.
Also, at 39:45, it seems to me the Lutherans commit the same fallacy you were attacking the Romanists for earlier, making your own nuanced, perhaps arbitrary distinctions, thus making your view unfalsifiable. Where does the Scripture make a distinct differentiation between "civic righteousness" and "spiritual righteousness"? How do you know Trent was speaking of "spiritual righteousness" rather than "civic righteousness" as what unbelievers are capable of?
@@DrJordanBCooper OK, if someone who WAS an Augustinian expert made the case that Wilson makes, how would you respond to his argument? Are there pre-Augustinian fathers who hold to the Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist view of the will?
@@DrJordanBCooper So, Just to review, Lutherans have no better explanation than do the Reformed as to why their deterministic doctrine was completely absent from church history until a former Manichean introduced it.
Paul's position is that doing works of the Law, which includes works done in conformity to the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, doesn't justify us, but that only God's grace received through faith alone justifies us. The Catholic position that grace enables a person to merit salvation through keeping the moral law is basically a trashing of what Paul taught. Catholics have redefined grace into something which is the opposite of what Scripture teaches. Grace is God's favour in that he sent Christ to atone for our sins, and so salvation is an unmerited gift which can only be received through faith alone, whereas Catholics have redefined grace into a means by which they can merit or earn salvation through works. So Lutherans and Catholics disagree on what constitutes the grace of justification, and therefore it's pointless to even begin to think Christians have anything in common with Catholics. Catholics believe a system of salvation which has no basis in Scripture. They use the same words but mean something different (that some believe in an initial justification through faith alone doesn't alter this fact), so there's no point in dialoguing with them. They're heretics, and they should be rejected as such. No doubt some are open to being corrected, and there will be some true but weak Christians amongst them, but the great majority are heretics. This is what Luther held.
I was hoping to get to something about the Council of Trent regarding marriage as sacred union and I had to stop when you got to the a point of non-blelievers not being rooted in anything, thus their good works come from some place that is not as good as being in rooted in God somehow? Next....
Man, doc. You're really eliding assurance of a state of grace and assurance of predestination, there. Maybe I'm making "too fine distinctions," but geez, you're not even citing the actual text of Session VI, Chapter 12.
But this is exactly why I cited this: "For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God." Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to be how Bellarmine understands it. I don't have a citation off hand at the moment, but this is at least how Gerhard understands Bellarmine.
@@DrJordanBCooper Does it really seem likely that the "grace of God" spoken of in the final phrase of which we cannot know with certainty is the same state of grace that absolution efficaciously grants, as was just affirmed earlier in the exact same sentence? It seems far more likely that the grace of God here spoken of is the same final assurance of which chapter XII speaks. That is, apart from the sacraments (which are themselves supernatural revelations of God), man cannot know simply by the presence of faith that he is either forgiven or that he will persevere. When we look to ourselves, we shouldn't look to our faith, but to man considered in "himself and his own weakness and indisposition," and in that weakness return to the grace of God found in the sacraments. I understand that Lutherans would never describe find assurance in the presence of fiduciary trust as a form of looking to ourselves for assurance, but that's exactly how the council fathers understood it.
@@eatingchaos The turns of phrase are difficult for me because I'm not used to them; however are you saying that Trent agrees with the Lutheran understanding that when God proclaims our adoption in Baptism we can reject Him and loose it (so we can only have assurance ofthe truth of God's Word and not of our final destination)? So we can trust that in the Absolution God removes our sins, yet if we abandon that trust our sins stay? If so, I'm very confused because I'm not sure I've heard anything that anathematises Luther or Lutherans. So why was Luther excommunicated? And why's he not been reinstated?
@@j.g.4942 In Catholic teaching, God doesn't only proclaim our adoption at baptism, but actually effects it. We certainly ought to sincerely trust that in absolution God speaks through is minister. And yes, God removes our sins at the absolution in the sacrament of confession, and if we despair by abandoning our trust in God we sin against hope, and that is (often, probably) a mortal sin. So, when we fall into uncertainty by looking to our own sins, we return to confession to be restored to a state of grace, or be justified. The official reasons for Luther's excommunication were given in Leo X's 1520 papal bull Exsurge Domini, which you can find online pretty easily. Those statements still beg the question as to whether Luther was fairly represented on any or all points, and also whether his case was fairly heard. The Vatican is much more charitable today, and it's a shame that it wasn't at the time. Nevertheless, Luther certainly held positions and advocated actions that are contrary to the universal teaching of the Church. Those would include his burning of a duly authorized plenary indulgence (however corruptly promoted); his advocating against sacramental status for the majority of the sacraments at both the Leipzig Disputation and in the 1520 On the Babylonian Captivity, which had been enumerated at at an ecumenical council (the Fourth or Great Lateran Council) and which are also held to be sacraments by Eastern Christians; his denial of the sacrifice of the mass (the language of which goes back through the whole history of the liturgy) and of the third principle part of the sacrament of penance (the practice of which goes back through the whole history of sacramental confession); and his encouraging German princes and other state officials to take control of the church from the bishops, successors to the apostles, in his 1520 Appeal to the German Nobility. These certainly proved the tipping point, and would have gotten anyone, up to and including a cardinal, excommunicated.
@@eatingchaos God's Word actually effects adoption in Lutheran teaching too, I forget sometimes that it's not always obvious that what God says happens ("let there be light"). There's that old Lutheran axiom, the Word of the Lord Stands Forever (VDMA). However, I think we might say abandoning trust in God's absolution is mortal sin (akin to calling God a liar from 1 John 1) and is at least part of Judas Iscariot's failure. Which seems to me to have been the point of Luther's argumentation and apology; that others did not trust God's proclamations and promises (particularly of Christ's victory over sin, death and the devil conveyed according to the Word in Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist) and thus insinuated that God was a liar. Yet I agree, it seems to me too that there was much speaking past people, and many failures to listen. I hope that in coming years the Holy Spirit guides the church in all those issues of translation and communication since God's Word spread from His people's ancient language to the first non-Greek speaker. For instance I was speaking with a Roman Catholic regarding Holy Communion; about how we participate in a timeless event, with us at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, every altar, and the Most Glorious Wedding Feast of the Lamb; and he said that's what Roman Catholic mean when they say 're-sacrifice'. Here I thought it was a plain reading of re-/again sacrifice/give up, so something like 'kill Jesus again but they couldn't have meant that'. Now I find that language shifts and we need to listen better.
Faith without work’s IS dead. Paul was not attacking work’s of charity as the protestant mistakenly believe,he was attacking work’s of the Law-a totally different and thing. But because protestant’s especially fundamentalists and evangelicals are arrogant they don’t see this. There’s NO salvation outside the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded TWO THOUSAND year’s ago NOT 500 as in the satanic revolt against the mystical body of Christ on earth the holy Catholic Church. Watch the warning or illumination of conscience by Christine Watkins! Then The Papacy can not be destroyed. Then Don’t call protestant’s Christian.
James also says "...I will show you my faith by my works." 'BY' is the key word here. He doesn't say faith AND works, no, works are a way of DISPLAYING faith. James says that THROUGH our works, we know that the saving faith is genuine. It isn't however the works themselves that save us, they are a sign that we have genuine faith. If James was suggesting that works were necessary for salvation, then he would be contradicting Paul in Romans 4, telling us that Abraham had only to believe, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham was saved before any works.
There is no English word which captures what the essence of what is usually translated to mean faith. Catholicism existed before the English language existed, it was founded right in the middle of classical antiquity in Roman Judea by some Jews . The Latin word fide and the Hebrew word emunah or fide captures the true meaning of what Catholics generally mean by faith in a theological sense. The closest approximation to what Catholics mean by fide or Jews mean by emunah would be fidelity, duty, trust or loyalty depending on how the word is used, faith is a poor translation of the meaning. The best definition of faith is captured by the phrase “a duty of support”. Unfortunately, Tyndale’s translation of the word influenced by Luther has stuck around. What did fide mean to the Romans? It was a duty to the emperor owed by patricians to support and maintain the temples of the Romanized Hellenic deities. This was how Romas demonstrated their fide.
As many rabbis have explained emunah is the our response to the Almighty by being his hands and feet, doing what He wills and by doing our duty towards Him, It is duty of support the work of the Almighty in the world we live in. You are correct it does not mean faith as believing in something, you can believe but that does not matter, many people believe, the Almighty cares about what you do in this world and doing the things you were supposed to do.
@@user-sm5tu9dq6p One is justified not by faith but (fide)lity. Perhaps I misheard Jordan Cooper on this but he implies that cooperation with grace is something new from Vatican II. If this is what he implied, he is wrong. Salvation is a process of cooperating with grace. One does not suddenly believe, but it too is a process, a work of grace with which one cooperates. G-d calls us to fidelity, not merely faith as in belief. This is borne out in Session 6 of the Council of Trent in various canons including IX. _CANON IX.If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema_ One has to read the text in Latin to understand how the Council Fathers are thinking and how they understand fide Canon XXVII.-Si quis dixerit, nullum esse mortale peccatum, nisi infidelitatis; aut nullo alio, quantumvis gravi et enormi, præterquam infidelitatis, peccato, semel acceptam gratiam amitti: anathema sit. CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity: let him be anathema. (translation) Fide is NOT Faith, it is fidelity. Language is the issue here. What the Romans understood to be fide when St. Paul writes to them is not what they would have understood as faith to us.
@@rkohan1096 I agree, my father was an ethnic Jew, both his parents were Jews, my mother is most likely of apostate dispora Jewish as their name seems to indicate that they at one time nesiim. i learnt about this at shiva at shul of emunah and then sometime later at a Hebrew Catholic facebook group and then sometime in October I was researching for an article on atheism and came across it again on Chabad. Emunah is translated as faith, this is a very bad translation of the word. I knew fide was no faith because I had studied classical history. Even our modern hisotrians have got classical history incorrect as they do not seem to understand what the Romans meant take for example the cult of the emperor, it has nothing to do with emperor worship Roman society was divided between the patrician and plebian classes. The patricians were the ruling class for the most part, all the senators were patricians, the aristocracy of the city of Rome. The rest of the citizens of Rome were plebeians. The patricians were Hellenized Romans influenced by the Greeks. Their deities were the Romanized Hellenic deities such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Mercury, Juno, Neptune and other such deities. The plebeians had the Sabine, Latin, Etruscan, Italic deities such as Ceres, Liber, Libera, Flora, Fortuna, Minerva etc. There was also much crossover such as with Quirinus, Vesta, Janus etc. The patricians belonged to the cult of the emperor, meaning that they worshipped the same deities as the emperor did, in other words, practised the same religio as the emperor. Being members of the patrician class meant that you owed a duty towards the emperor which was fide. This duty was demonstrated by supporting, maintaining and providing for the temples attended by the flamines.
Catholics and Lutherans are mistaken about original sin, especially if they embrace inherited guilt, which has all the logic of a square-circle. Luther is just wrong about total depravity and forensic justification too. Luther was profoundly influenced by the late Augustine and by the voluntarisms of the late medieval period. Its not the Bible- its the worst aspects of tradition.
I don’t believe either teach “inherited guilt.” If you have seen a Catholic document teaching this, I’d like to read it. This is the doctrine of original sin: ”Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-“ Romans 5:12 RSV-C So by the first sin (the origin of sin, the original sin) sin and death came into the world. All men sinned and inherited unrighteousness.
Thank you for adding that distinction of civic vs spiritual righteousness at 39:30-41:00. That's something I'd wondered about for a long time!
You should totally do an episode on Newman and the development of doctrine!
Agreed!
I'm reading From Bossuet to Newman now. Very interesting.
Anglican William G Witt on his Non sermoni res has a very good series of posts on Newman and development
I absolutely second this!
@@aGoyforJesus is it worth it? I have Mozley's response to Newman.
The Vatican II view of Salvation almost comes out and makes a Protestant-esque distinction between *Justification* (Forensic; Work of Christ alone; Determinant for how you get into Heaven) and *Sanctification* (Participatory; Cooperation with Grace; Determinant for Levels of Heaven / Time spent in Purgatory)...
... Almost, but it's muddled with trying to still hold continuity with Trent.
Old comment, I know, but can you point me to the specific document you are referring to from Vatican II?
Nice, i hope you bring some videos of Chemnitz works in the future.
It would be great to see you appear on Reason & Theology and have a discussion there. I hear they've been wanting to have you on.
Excellent! Well done sir! Thank you, and may God richly bless you in all that you put your hand to do.
Coram Deo
+Fr. Mel McMinn ThD
Modern Rome is struggling to maintain tension between Old Rome (Trent) and New Rome (quasi-Lutheran) -- they will never be logically consistent as long as they maintain an infallibility that makes it impossible to admit that they messed up in the past.
It's like gaslighting. They're constantly changing the story and hoping no one notices and presenting it like they've always been the V2 Church.
I also find the interaction between the sedevacantists and the conservative Catholics in the new church. The sedes recognize the changes are a break. So since Rome is true, the pope must be a heretic. The conservative Catholics realize that the sede position would mean Rome would have been invalidated.
Both are correct and both are wrong. There have been changes and this does mean the Roman Catholic system has been falsified.
While I agree Rome has issues reconciling its current self to its old teachings, I don't think this phenomena is any different from any other form of Protestantism including Lutheranism. There are multiple competing groups even within the same denomination for influence that say they offer the "true" apostolic teaching that is "bible based". Rome seems a little more disingenuous since they say they are united under the pope but are clearly in the middle of a civil war trying to reconcile V2 (one conservative Catholics seem to be losing especially under Pope Francis). Protestants at least recognize their differences but choose to break from each other when disagreements on doctrine are too large. But what then is a Christian really to do? Choose a camp and hope for the best?
What is one example where you say “Old Rome” and “New Rome” are in tension. In the context of the Trent decree on justification of that is one of them.
@@aGoyforJesusWhat is one doctrine that has changed?
I was looking at Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2, and he was arguing against Catholics who thought the text was about initial salvation. Would that be different than initial justification? Also, I wanted to follow up with your Bellarmine references. If you have them, could you share what work you're going off of? Thanks.
Really excellent presentation--thank you!
ReasonandTheology made this exact argumemt when in conversation with Rev. Wolfmueller. I.e., any Holy Father who speaks of Justification in the way of the Lutheran Confession refers to Initial Justification.
Yup. It seems to be the go-to response right now.
@@DrJordanBCooper Catholic here. I don't take that position. I'd be happy to engage with you, Jordan.
It's ironic how so many protestants are drawn to the magisterial authority of Rome, assuming that it will grant some sort of utopian unity and immutable consistency, when in actuality, the Pope scarcely ever speaks infallibly, doctrine can develop, and we have hardly any authoritative interpretations of scripture...
So what do you suggest then? That everybody should pick up the Bible and start making up doctrines as they go? See, what you said, anyone can say... should we stay with the Lutheran teaching and hold on to it as infalible? Can we read the Bible, just go to a free evangelical church and assume we interpret the Bible infalible at home? Please...
Excellent discussion. Thanks so much
Is one of the areas of misunderstanding that Trent had collapsed the coram mundu--coram deo realities? So the idea that apart from faith man can do no good sounded to them like an absolute statement denying the reality of Civic Righteousness (or the same problem with Civic Reason, etc)
Yes. Absolutely.
It is funny. The channel “Reason and Theology” did an episode to answer or critique of your episode demonstrating the changing stance of the Roman Church. (The episode where you point toward the councils which call for the Inquisition and which condemned and executed Hus, Papal Bulls, and the current Pope’s stand on execution.) He did exactly what you stated is a frustration addressing these issues with the Roman church. He would say a Bull isn’t really authoritative, etc. And addressing the Councils, he never really addressed the points you raised. Finally he was fond of moving the goalposts and borderline ad hominem.
What about Chapter 8 where Trent says that nothing that precedes justification merits it? Does this make Trent self-contradictory in your view? Asking as a curious evangelical. Thanks for your great channel!
wish we could hold another council and debate honestly.... but alas...
Can you recommend a specific document or section from Bellarmine that would demonstrate his position on initial justification as-per Trent, in his own words? We're discussing your video on Christcord, and you mention Bellarmine multiple times, but I'm not sure where to look in his writings to find that position.
I'll try and grab a quote, which I should've done before recording.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks, fam, your videos have been a great source of conversation with the other high-churchers in particular.
@@ChristianCombatives I would very much appreciate getting that quote. When you get it, could you please reply to this comment here so I can see it? Thanks.
Dr. Cooper, you really should talk to a Catholic Theologian or someone who knows a lot about Catholic theology (e.g. Dr. Christopher Malloy, Michael Barber, Brant Pitre, or the guys at Reason and Theology). I think it would go a long way for helping clear things up for your audience. As a former Lutheran myself, I truly hope that Lutherans and Catholics continue dialoging with each other on TH-cam (and other popular modern media) so that we can better understand each other. Unfortunately, there are many nuances and distinctions that you seem to want to make with Lutheran positions that you are not willing to try and afford/understand in Catholic teaching. I think a dialogue would go along way to help clear up some of the misunderstanding that you have here.
Just for one instance, you say the initial justification position isn't in Trent. But this is also from the Council of Trent and to me seems to be teaching a completely gratuitous initial justification:
CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6).
Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 8
Here is Trent teaching on ongoing justification after the initial justification. NOTE: the key to unlocking Catholic theology is that everything is grace; the beginning of justification (initial conversion), the middle (ongoing justification), and the end (final judgement/justification). Jesus is the source of this life of grace and apart from him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).
Jesus Christ himself continually infuses strength into the justified, as... the vine into the branches (John 15:5); this strength always precedes, accompanies, and follows their good works, which, without it, could in no way be pleasing to God and meritorious. Therefore, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified for them to be regarded as having entirely fulfilled the divine law in their present condition by the works they have done in the sight of god; they can also be regarded as having truly merited eternal life, which they will obtain in due time, provided they die in a state of grace (cf. Rev 14:3)... Thus, neither is our justice considered as coming from us (2 Cor 3:5), nor is God’s justice disregarded or denied (Rom 10:3); for the justice that is said to be ours because we become just by its inheritance in us is that of God himself, since it is infused in us by God through the merit of Christ... Nevertheless, a Christian should never rely on himself or glory in himself instead of in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17), whose goodness toward all men is such that he wants his own gifts to be their merits.
Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 16
Because this sanctifying grace that is infused into us is the formal cause of justification, this is why Trent can rightly speak of justification increasing over time. It is another way to say we grow in grace throughout our lives when we cooperate with God and do good works.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."
Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 10
This is what I also see in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
CCC 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
"If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.)
God bless!
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I certainly don't want to downplay the commonalities between our traditions on points that are rather significant, such as the contention that we cannot merit our entrance into a state of grace. And yes, I recognize that according to Trent (and the CCC) that justification does begin without any merit on our part. However, even at that point, there is a kind of human willing/cooperation which is necessary for this initial reception of the grace of justification, as is evidenced by the rejection of passivity in justification expressed in the Canons discussed here.
It it of historical note that some figures like Reginald Pole and Cardinal Contarini *did* propose a notion of sola fide for initial justification which also coincided with a continual growth in justification through inherent grace at Trent. Yet, the council rejected these proposals.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for the response, Dr. Cooper. I think you Dr. Malloy would have a very interesting conversation if you were able to sit down and go over some of the ideas in Trent and their historical development. You have heard me recommend his book "Engrafted into Christ" before. He seems to understand the Lutheran ideas that were circulating at the time very well and also seems to make a very compelling case that Trent is simply reaffirming Catholic views of justification that have always been held in the Church.
Thanks again and God bless!
@@DrJordanBCooper If I recall correctly, neither Pole's and Contarini's proposals for validating the language of Sola Fide would exclude neither the role of baptism nor the role for the human will in initial justification, and still required that sacrament of confession after committing mortal sin. That's the Tridentine doctrine in all but name, although it concedes the language of Sola Fide (in a way that would have been helpful for ecumenism and for taking seriously the use of the phrase in the church fathers, but not for future catechesis). That's a very similar to the move Benedict XVI made, when he said in his landmark Angelus address: "For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love."
I could be wrong about Pole and Contarini, though. I loaned out my copy of Reformers in the Wings a few years ago and never got it back.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper Dr. Jordan B Cooper Re: passivity. If the will is purely passive in conversion then isn’t it incoherent to call it a change of the will? You only know a change in will by its activity-just as with a change in intentionality. It’s nonsensical to assert that, for example, God put a thought of a pink elephant in my mind but I didn’t think of it until afterwards. Isn’t the passive/active distinction you make akin to saying God changes our minds but we don’t change our minds (until after he changes our minds?) Frankly, that’s ridiculous and makes a hash of language. I’m frustrated now because I’ve been rather convinced of Lutheranism lately.
@@severalstories3420 Greetings! I think you are asking a very good question here. One thing I would suggest is to make sure you take the time to explore this question of the role of man's cooperation in justification from both the Lutheran and Catholic sides. At one time, I also held to a very Lutheran monergistic view of justification. Once I started to understand the Catholic position more, I realized that they also teach a kind of monergism that can affirm all the places in the Bible that show God is taking the initiative in our conversion, that faith is entirely a gift from God (Council of Trent Session VI. CHAPTER VIII), and there is no merit on the part of the person in assenting to the call from God in conversion. Catholics can also affirm the many places in the Bible that plainly speak about our freedom of choice in responding to the promptings of God to repentance and conversion.
I now feel that the bondage of the will type view of Luther is much more a philosophical presupposition that is read into scriptures to try and make the sola fide paradigm work, rather than something that is explicitly taught in scriptures or makes any sense philosophically. I feel like the Catholic system is also much more inline with the historical Church, such as what St. Augustine says here:
"He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13).
See what you think as you learn read up on it more.
I do highly recommend the book I mentioned above, "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy to anyone exploring the historical justification debate between Lutherans and Catholics. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy does a very good job potraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions.
If interested, see my blog posts here for more too: www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/
God bless!
Very good point on Rome's ever-shifting distinctions and reclassifications relied on to avoid contradiction.
I found this discussion most useful and helpful, however, to summarise the whole belief, what is the roman catholic view on justification? is it by faith alone, following from Luther's ideas, justification by works or by both faith and works? I am trying to write up an essay about the different beliefs, taken from Luther's perspective and the RCC's perspective but the similarities and differences are so confusing. Also, which argument/belief do you consider to be stronger with better reasoning than the other? Thanks again @Dr. Jordan B Cooper
If one can't have assurance of heaven, how did St. Paul say that he had fought the good fight and that he had indeed kept the faith? How did he say he was torn between going to be with Christ vs. staying alive if he didn't know that he was currently in a state of grace?
Furthermore, it's amazing to consider that if the Roman Catholic Church actually consistently applied Trent, they'd clearly need to consider John Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Ambrose, Basil the Great, Ambrosiaster, Hilary of Poitiers, and other Fathers to be anathema.
Wrong video. Here th-cam.com/video/E11QuYtCGyQ/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/QBTy10EG0y8/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/w-d-xo.html are more appropriate for this discussion.
Why was Paul worried about being disqualified? 1 Corinthians 9:27. Why does Paul say the Israelites that died because of their digressions in the desert and that was a warning for us, for the ones that think they stand to take heed, least they fall? 1 Corinthians 10:11-12. Where is the assurance of salvation in that?
The council of Trent does not condemn all uses of the term “justified by faith alone.” It specifically says if a person says we are justified by faith alone, to mean that nothing else is required to be disposed and prepared. Canon 9. Chapters 6 and 7 I believe are the correct numbers, (it might be 5 and 6) define what is meant by prepared and disposed of our own will. The chapters basically say we must convert our hearts to God of our own free will, be baptized, repent and keep the commandments, and have faith.
Basically if a person that says we are justified by faith alone, and mean antinomianisn, they are anathema, which is to say excommunicated.
@@IG88AAAand none of the reformers believed in antinomianism. This is what Paul is accused of pretty much in Romans 6. If the preaching of the gospel doesn’t initially illicit this accusation, you’re not preaching the gospel.
@@KnightFel That is precisely my point. The reformers understanding of “justified by faith alone” isn’t necessarily wrong. Pope Benedict the XVI said as much.
@@KnightFel “If the preaching of the gospel doesn't initially illicit this accusation, you're not preaching the gospel.”
Can you support this argument?
Any objection to me clipping out your introduction here to stand by itself? It's very powerful and needs to be on its own.
Sure. Go ahead.
@@DrJordanBCooper this is why you're may favorite Lutheran besides the Lutherans who suscribe to my channel of course
Luther's position in TBOTW is that God wills everything that happens as He is omnipotent, and therefore He has perfect foreknowledge. Luther affirmed the necessitating foreknowledge of God in that what He foreknows has to happen. Therefore Luther argued that free will doesn't exist. However he draws a distinction between being coerced into doing something against one's will and willingly doing that which God foreknows will occur, and he makes it plain that he is talking about the latter and not the former. He writes of Judas:
"… if God foreknew that Judas would be traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor, and it was not in the power of Judas or any creature to do differently or to change his will, though he did what he did willingly and not under compulsion, but that act of will was a work of God, which he set in motion by his omnipotence, like everything else. For it is an irrefutable and self-evident proposition that God does not lie and is not deceived. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even if all the most learned men of all the centuries are so blind as to think and speak otherwise. And however much you boggle at it, your own and everyone else's conscience is convinced and compelled to say that if God is not deceived in what he foreknows, then the thing foreknown must of necessity take place ..." (Luther's Works, Vol. 33, p.185)
Luther didn't agree with the position of the FOC that God doesn't will evil to occur. And of course he was correct in believing that God wills evil to occur by his hidden will, as one only has to look at the fact that God planned and predestined Christ's crucifixion to know that God wills evil to occur (Acts 2:23; 4:27,28), although of course God isn't implicated in the evil quality of the act but only in the actual occurrence of it. Luther likened God to being the rider of lame horses which go badly which isn't the fault of the rider.
God doesn't of course will evil in the sense of willing and delighting in evil, but only the sense of it being necessary to occur so that it fulfills His plan in bringing about whatever He has determined must happen to serve His glory and the salvation of those He has elected to save.
Very helpful video, thanks. I had a question, what Pope are you referring to at about 34:45 in the video where you say he held to the same view as Augustine and Prosper on the will?
24:00 point in common with lutheranism
As someone looking into historic Protestantism and thinking about maybe converting or attending a Protestant church from Catholicism, what should I do when, where I am, there is no significant Lutheran population and/or they are not faithful to their Lutheran heritage? What kind of churches should I be looking into (which have a statistically significant population)? Presbyterian? Evangelical/Reformed Anglican? Baptist? Any help would be appreciated
Anglican.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks for the response. In my city Anglicans are very low church Reformed, whereas in other cities in my country they are high church liberal, so I am wondering what puts them over say Presbyterians when, at least where I am, they are basically the same just they have bishops
@@BuggyrcobraAya "ttending a Protestant church from Catholicism"
Being Catholic (or Orthodox), one receives the Resurrected body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, a means for receiving his grace. In protestant denominations Anglicans included, grape juice and crackers remains just the same, nothing more. I can get the same in my kitchen. I would never leave the Catholic Church for the latter.
Thanks for this. Great work.
Although it's interesting to go through the anathemas of Trent by themselves, I think it would be more helpful to go through the anathemas in light of the positive teachings on justification in Trent. I think the positive teachings are the context in which the anathemas should be read, and without them, it's hard to have a full and accurate understanding of what Trent taught on justification.
I can do that.
@@DrJordanBCooper thanks!!
29 minute mark. In the Lutheran view, does this cooperation or “synergy” with regards to sanctification have ANY relation or effect whatsoever on justification? Can someone not cooperating with God’s work to sanctify said to be currently or finally justified?
32:15 about free will
Thank you. Dealing with Rome and also the Eastern Church is like trying to nail Jello to a wall! God's peace be with you.
Dealing with Lutherans is like having a conversation with a bipolar manic alcoholic on LSD
To deal with lutherans, is the same thing dealing with Roman Catholics, but the former is trying to search their triumph card, namely the imputation of righteousness via faith alone in the fathers. The latter, i.e the Roman Catholics, do the same type of approach, but concerning the papacy.
@@deusimperator the Augsburg Confession of faith is the written confession of the Lutheran Faith. Written to be read by anyone. It is the official teaching of the Church. If not believed and taught, then they are not truly Lutheran.
Ok Dr. J, therefore does Trent reject the reformation doctrine of grace by Faith alone ?
Or do they teach another gospel at Trent to be condemned ?!
Galatians 1:6 (ESV)
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV)
[8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Any book suggestions written by a Pope?
If the Old Testament believers were saved by faith alone just as we are now, then the Holy Spirit since Pentecost works for what end in our salvation now as Christians? How are we gathered into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit and why if faith saves the same as always?
I'm not sure that its fair to suggest that the reformed tradition has taken up Piper's view. I get what you're saying but its a bit frustrating because our confessions don't allow for that sort of view.
Yeah, I understand. It wasn't my intention to delve into that whole discussion.
Calvin's Antidote to Trent doesn't allow for it, either.
@@DrJordanBCooper fair enough.
Sorry to Necro bump this, but your argument about inventing categories that are impervious to critique makes me think of Friday.
"What about the time he tried to choke me in Smoke's back yard?"
"Oh that was different."
Why anybody willingly becomes Roman Catholic amazes me. I was raised in that tradition and I have never in over 30 years since leaving considered going back.
How does the Council of Trent statement that both faith and works are necessary to receive justification compare with Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:16 speaks of works of the law. What law? Galatians 3:17 says the law came 430 years after Abraham. It is talking about the law of Moses, and specifically circumcision.
All this to say, the council of Trent chapter 1 teaches we are not justified by works of the law.
@@debraforsythe7296 I would add that the council of Trent nowhere says that both faith and works are necessary to receive justification. This is explicitly stated in chapter 8.
Please, let's not fool ourselves. Of course Rome is clearly and adamantly semi-pelagian. Semi-pelagianism says that man starts his salvation and God completes it. What is the essence of this theory? That man's free will contributes in his salvation. On this ground, we can say that Rome is not semi-pelagian within the narrow context of it, although in the essence of the term, it is. It is a delicate semi-pelagianism. Free will is always there, intact, holy and strong. In order to overcome the problem, they said that there is something called prevenient grace. This is the only difference. In fact, they say the same with Pelagians and Semi-pelagians but using the prevenient grace solution, they succeed not to be accused of heresy. Same is the way they follow the 95% of the protestants. The other point I want to do is that in every day life this roman teaching is lived as 100% pelagianism and semi-pelagianism, not in a straight way, but in a semi-straight way. A simple roman believer must have some knowledge of theology in order to speak about prevenient grace, otherwise, he is sure that everything in his salvation has to do with his free will and response to God's offer and law.
If the Catholic teaching on meriting eternal life is semi or totally pelagian, then the scriptures are pelagian.
Hilarious how Robert Koon says that justification by faith is an innovation, and yet, I guess he does not bat an eye at the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility lol
Dr. Cooper, I have had a friend who is becoming increasingly convinced by Catholic apologetics, and has made the argument that "if Luther were present for the Council of Trent, there would not have been a split," meaning that he believes Trent to have actually made several concessions in favor of the reformers' complaints. I believe this is an argument my friend is pulling from various Catholic resources (I know he's into Pints with Aquinas). In your review of these canons, I cannot fathom Luther agreeing with the clear negation of justification by faith alone. Have you heard this argument from Catholic apologists before? Is there something I'm missing about their claim? Thank you.
I know this is 3 year old comment, but please consider googling “jimmy akin justification by faith alone” and “Jimmy akin what Catholics believe about faith and works.” I think your friend is correct and these can help clear it up for you.
@@IG88AAA Hey thanks for the input. I've actually since looked into Akin's content a bit (and have even enjoyed his mysterious world podcast). He and Trent Horn have put out resources I've found really helpful for understanding Roman Catholic views.
@@calebhickerson I’m curious if you checked out those two articles/essays. I’m curious what you think of them.
@@IG88AAA I haven't looked at those specifically, but I've listened to some debates/discussions. I will give them a read though, thank you!
@@calebhickerson I am curious if you read the suggested works of Jimmy, and what you think of his take on the anathema against “justification by faith alone.”
Thanks Jordan. Basically agreed with everything here, but I would ask for clarification about the "every deed not done in faith is a sin" bit... I've heard Catholics make the same/similar distinction that you made between civil and "supernatural" righteousness. I think they believe that, and I didn't think that canon really committed them to a contrary position. Am I misunderstanding?
Problem is this. If there is literally nothing you can do to be saved. Why are not all saved? Calvinists seem to be way more consistent than Lutherans on this issue, they bite the bullet and admit that God just want some people to be saved and others damned, so then we have the “God loves everybody” closed as an option. I think what the Catholic Church means by works are what Eastern Orthodox mean, being united with God and have a share in the divine nature. But again, if you cannot do anything at all for salvation, then it would follow that those who are damned are damned because God did not choose them, and that creates all sorts of problems... Catholic doctrine has indeed developed over time, but Christ did say he would GUIDE his church into all truth.
We are not responsible for grace and salvation, but we are responsible for our sin and damnation. We can’t do anything to be saved, but we can reject the gift of salvation. If your are seeing faith and accepting Christ sacrifice as a work, than that’s a different issue all together.
Why is it frustrating? If they are coming to a better understanding and teaching of the faith, surely this is good for everyone?
The last comment there about purgatory is interesting to me. Have you interacted with the eastern view on toll houses / judgement after death? Basically the “powers of the air” convicting you and trying to drag you down.
Eerily similar to Tibetan book of the dead in the sense that “remembering” the Truth in this moment of panic is what frees you
Toll houses are allegorical. The EO teach that life after death is essentially a mystery but that one can have a foretaste of heaven or hell (one's final destination after the Last Judgement).
32:19 bookmark
Seriously, on the final sentence of VI:9, you're providing your own, Chemnitzian interpretation of the text. Can you provide any evidence that that's how Catholics at the time interpreted that sentence?
I've been trying to find out if the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism is the same thing? Can anyone tell me this? Thank you.
The Baltimore Catechism is a book that teaches the Catholic faith in a question and answer format. Today there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not in a Q&A format. It is also more through with citations and cross-references.
The Council of Trent was an ecumenical Council held in the 16th century. It was the 19th ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The 1st was the Council of Nicea in 325ad and the most recent, the 21st, was the 2nd Vatican Council held from 1962-1965.
@@brucebarber4104 yes thank you, what I'm looking for is if the Council of Trent catechism and the Baltimore Catechism teach the same thing. I'm not interested in the one after Vatican II, I've already read it. Thank you for responding. 🙏
@@dalton7145, I'm not sure whether the Trent and Baltimore Catechisms are the same or different and have wondered that as well. I'll see what I can find out.
@@dalton7145, from what I found doing a search is that they are not the same.
An article from 2013 in The Catholic Telegraph by Father Earl Fernandes states the following:
"The Baltimore Catechism was a Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared as a result of Third Council of Baltimore. Following the Council of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine, SJ, published a Small Catechism, which was translated into many languages. However, as early as 1829, the American bishops expressed a desire (not realized until 1885) for a catechism suited to the people of America. The Baltimore Catechism was the de facto text for Catholic instruction in the United States from 1885 until the late-1960s."
From Wikipedia:
"The Plenary Councils of Baltimore were three national meetings of Catholic bishops in the United States in 1852, 1866 and 1884 in Baltimore, Maryland."
Hope this helps.God Bless.
Have you ever thought of interviewing the Pastor from Ask the Pastor?
No.
You know, on the question of assurance of salvation, I noticed this is come up a lot. The point that Trent is making is that epistemologically, your own faculties and senses, are subject to error. I don't think anyone in their right and honest mind, as much as it can be, would ever say that they have infallible sense data and interpretation of the world around them, or even that their brain and neurons firing operate in an infallible way. This is not the same thing as the skeptical of secularism in our age and put on clear display in the matrix movies, or simulation & simulacra, that leads to fatalism, but it is actually a truth that we are and can be in error even in regards to our own salvation and state of grace and more to the point, Calvinist actually lean super heavy into this. Their language would be that we are totally depraved, but that goes too far, Calvinists end up in a position where they're trying to remain consistent by affirming total inability, the erroneous view that you can never know that you're an error and that you cannot repent from that error and turn to God unless God zaps you with some arbitrary magic pre-regeneration juice.
By saying the rejection of monergism in initial justification is a rejection of faith alone in initial justification you have effectively said that Arminians, Wesleyans, many Anglicans, Pentecostals, etc, all teach contrary to Faith Alone in initial justification
I wouldn't say that they deny sola fide. My intent here is to compare the specifically Lutheran formulation of the doctrine with Trent's. And this is a significant point of divergence, just as it would be between Lutherans and some other Protestant groups.
Maybe a cat among pidgeons, and perhaps against the good doctor, but if it's not trust alone in God's Work in Christ through the Holy Spirit then it wouldn't be 'Faith Alone'. As I understand at least.
As an example: I know of someone from that arm of Christian traditions; she made a decision to give her life to Christ as a child, fell away, later joined another church, rebaptised, moved again, decided again, ended up in a lutheran church still unsure of Christ's love for her (still not looking to Jesus for salvation, but rather her own decisions). That is not faith alone in Christ's Word and Work alone, that's faith + my choice; which lead to 'saved by my decision alone' when under stress.
If it's not looking to Christ alone, I feel that fallen humanity looks to itself alone; the 'navelgazing' of Original Sin. Or am I off here?
Is it not true that the Arminian/Erasmian/Weslyan doctrine all teach the heresy of free will which is the antithesis of Sola Fide grounded and founded in Scripture?
I’m a lay Catholic, currently reading through the Council of Trent, I’m on session 24, so I’m almost through it. I’m reading it taking notes and looking up corresponding bible verses; and I’m doing so without using secondary and tertiary commentary. And I am not hearing/seeing the denial of Grace nor of Faith that you seem to be hinting at. I am seeing clear statements against Luther, Lutheranism, & against Calvinism. But nothing that doesn’t confirm to my reading of the Bible or the Church Fathers (mind you I haven’t exhaustively read everything every single church father has wrote). ??
Trent is very clear that initial justification is by grace alone and that "faith is the root and foundation of all justification " . Trent is crystal clear that initial justification can not be earned or merited. Trent is clear that if it could be earned by works then grace would no longer be grace. This is all quoted in Trent
Good points.
Can you provide a quote or link? That's pretty interesting.
@@gradyadams2366 I posted a link. TH-cam typically removes replies with links. Let me know if it doesn’t appear.
Yeah no link haha
@@gradyadams2366 So lame. Google “council of Trent decree on justification.” EWTN has a good one with citations of scripture. Chapter 8 is the part referenced. It states “nothing that comes before justification, faith or works, can merit the grace of justification.” Hope this helps. Happy to answer any more questions you could have.
the term jesuetical in relation to argumentation grew out of this ability to adjust the truth
As a Calvinist, I think these breakdowns are awesome. Good work! Though it is pretty clear that I believe you have a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position on many of these things, it is good to understand the inconsistency in Trent when compared to the early church fathers.
The Early Church Fathers were Catholics. Most of them were bishops.
St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch
St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna
St. Pope Clement I
St. John Chysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople
St. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea
St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo
St. Cyprian of Carthage
St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria
St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan
St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem
Tertullian, bishop of Carthage
St. Basil of Caesarea
St. Irenaus, bishop of Lyon
Pope Damasus I
etc...
St. Clement of Alexandria
“When we hear, ‘Your faith has saved you,’ we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord” (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).
Origen
“Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James” (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).
St. Cyprian
“You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire, you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living” (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).
St. Aphraates
“Great is the gift which he that is good has given to us. While not forcing us, and in spite of our sins he wants us to be justified. While he is in no way aided by our good works, he heals us that we may be pleasing in his sight. When we do not wish to ask of him, he is angry with us. He calls out to all of us constantly; ‘Ask and receive, and when you seek, you shall find’” (Treatises 23:48 [A.D. 336-345]).
St. Gregory of Nyssa
“Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith” (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).
St. John Chrysostom
” ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the b.asphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).
St. Jerome
” ‘But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.’ It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the ‘just’ man lives by faith. He implies thereby that whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees” (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]).
St. Augustine
” ‘He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.’ What does this mean, ‘for our justification’? So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made yourself just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it” (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]).
St. Gregory the Great
“Neither faith without works nor works without faith is of any avail, except, perhaps, that works may go towards the reception of faith, just as Cornelius, before he had become one of the faithful, merited to be heard on account of his good works. From this it can be gathered that his performance of good works furthered his reception of faith” (Homilies on Ezekiel 1:9:6 [A.D. 593]).
@@JDiggity12 If Dr Cooper misunderstands Calvinism… why do you believe he is not misunderstanding Catholicism?
Hello, thanks for the video - regarding whether everything apart from faith is a sin, how is it reconciled with Romans 2? "12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."
Is this "doing by nature what the law requires" a sin? I Just want to understand better your position.
No, but, if not done if faith, yes, because it's tainted with sin.
Hi, I am one of those converts to RCC, and I thought you made some good points. In my view, the best point you have is when you address the apparent historic inconsistency of the RCC. Maybe RCC has been more inconsistent than I like? I hope to see you in a debate soon, to get more into this important topic. That said, when you read through the canons of Trent, I found myself nodding in agreement with Trent. I am not sure I have heard so much about the "initial justification", but you might be right about that. Anyway - justification is a key topic for why I have converted. The idea that you saved no matter your works does not really fit well with Scriptures or any sense of justice. I am sure you can find a lot of support for "grace/faith alone" in Paul (because he spoke to Jews who couldn't see past the Law). But Jesus spoke very clearly about works and connected it to salvation (tale of sheep/goats, parable of the talents, asked people to repent, etc). I have to admit that I view Lutheran teachings as born out of a very frustrated mind - he was obsessed by works, and therefore had to reject them altogether to get peace.
@Morten Simonsen Greetings! I am a recent-ish convert to the Catholic Church too. Justification was the topic that finally made me give up Protestantism too. I want to suggest to you that the Catholic Church is actually much more historically consistent in its presentation of justification than you may realize. The book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy is an amazing resource if you are ever interested in a deeper dive into the topic. This book argues that the Joint Declaration on Justification (1999) was not an accurate portrayal of either the Lutheran or Catholic positions on justification.This book claims (and I now agree) that the crux of the difference between the two views is over what both sides see is the formal cause of justification: is it the imputation of Christ’s righteousness extra nos (Lutherans) or is it the infusion of sanctifying grace into the believer (Catholics)? Dr. Malloy makes his case by surveying the two side’s positions on justification throughout history, including the failed reconciliation attempts at the Diet of Regensburg, the Council of Trent, modern Lutheran views, and finally a critique of the Joint Declaration. This was one of the most important books for solidifying my views that the Catholic Church is actually right about justification and does not teach any form of “works righteousness” or Pelagianism. It is also demonstrates that the positions that Trent affirmed on justification were completely inline with the constant historic traditions of the Church. Luther's ideas on extrinsic imputed righteousness were a completely novelty. It seems to me that Dr. Malloy also does a very good job portraying Lutheran ideas fairly and heavily cites directly from the Lutheran Confessions.
If interested, see my blog posts here for more too (sola fide posts 2.1 - 2.4): www.follyofthecross.com/category/catholicism/fullness-of-the-truth/
God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Thanks, I will look into it for sure, although the justification theology of Luther lends itself (in recent years in Scandinavia) to so such blatant heresies - so it not possible for me to believe that such a theology can "function" in the long run. But I might not fully understand the Catholic view yet, so perhaps it's a good idea!
@The Hyper Augustinian Hello Hyper Augustinian! While Lutherans definitely nuance justification differently than many Protestants to include apostasy (and some form of mortal sin though there is far from consensus on what constitutes a mortal sin), there remains some very key differences between Catholics and Lutherans. My blog posts I reference above go into more detail. Here is a very brief summary.
I think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran artificial separation vs. Catholic wholistic approach
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum (italics added).
**Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186**
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126**
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127**
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127**
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
**McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135**
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
I hope this helps clear up why I think Lutherans and Catholics still have some very key differences in their views of justification to work through. God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Hello! I was wondering what you’re thoughts are on the veneration of icons, dulia and latria, and Nicaea 2 anathematizing those who didn’t agree. If any. God bless.
@@elijahyoung11 Hi Elijah. I haven't done much any research on the history behind icons so I apologize that I don't really have many thoughts on the matter as it pertains to ecumenical discussions. God bless!
Could you comment on the assurance article on calledtocommunion? Just search Andrew Preslar (the author) and assurance. I suck at youtube so I keep trying to send links and the comment's removed. Anyway, he directly contradicts what you have to say here about assurance; even though I'm wary of roman tendency to make distinctions without differences and say something about the richness of their "both/and" philosophy in life (with a Cheshire smile), to my mind, this one seems like a reasonable argument.
Also...I don't know where you talk about this, but I can redirect the following question to another video if you'd like. It just occurred to me that there may be a problem accounting for moral blameworthiness given the Christian understanding of our sinfulness. If we could read minds, couldn't we charge every last one of us with the worst sexual and violent crimes, even daily, if our legal system better mirrored God's own? This seems untenable. Why do we even presume to charge anyone? Doesn't that make us hypocrites? And this is made worse by the Lutheran "simul peccator" teaching, it seems, since we can't even reduce the punishable crimes to the Roman Catholic distinctions about deliberately entertaining or engaging a sinful thought. For a Lutheran, everything we all do all the time deserves the capital punishment, no?
TH-cam filters them out
That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (III:1:2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Romans 3:24-25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Ephesians 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part III, Question 46, Article 1)
So you think this video comes to different conclusions then Gavin Ortland's view of Rome? And Mike Winger's view of Rome?
Can you do a video that responds to their view of what they think Rome teaches?
God is not the author of sin. Man is both responsible and accountable for sin. However the Scriptures clearly teach that God is Sovereign over all creation and that God works all things according to his good pleasure. God is Sovereign over sin, Satan and man so that all things come to past according to God's eternal good pleasure, plan and purpose by his Providence. This is the Truth of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation but even more specifically in the life of Job and even more importantly in the Messianic prophecies concerning Christ and the fulfillment of his death on the Cross. Both the fall and Christ's work of redemption were all according to God's immutable and eternal counsel.
@Dr. Jordan Peterson
The Dr. Jordan Peterson I hear on Utube is no mystic but is an intellectual.
I believe in the Canon of Scripture not in mystical visions that have no Biblical foundation. I reject the visions and dreams of the false apostles and false prophets of today as heresy.
I can't speak to what the Council of Trent has said. I can speak to some of the things you have brought up.
The _reason_ why we are impervious to any _attack_ is First they are wrong. Second Jesus promised His Church the gates of hell would not prevail against her (His Church), and it hasn't for these past 1,990 years with His help.
It is easy to be _impervious_ to that which is not true. Some of the accusations are for the most part hypocritical. Claiming we are doing something _they_ , you are not.
Or usually it isn't _Biblical_ when it is clearly in the Bible.
I will give one example of Hypocritical and one of unbiblical.
Hypocritical. Catholics cannot *know* they are going to heaven. Neither did St. Paul, he mentioned a race that he did not want to lose in the end.
But the hypocritical part is a person who is saved and *always* saved, who *knows* they are going to heaven no matter what... is then told _"They were never really saved after all."_ You left that part out of your video though.
So, this fourteen-year-old who was saved and is going to heaven was _saved_ twice more has someone say over their 62-year-old body in a coffin, "they were never *really* saved." Surprise!
While a Catholic knows that sin or not sinning is his responsibility and has the help of God, to achieve this, the Help of God when he fails and can have his sins forgiven if needed (and repented unlike you where Jesus suffered and died for any number of sins you wish to perform in your future, no repentance required.)
Eating the body and drinking the blood of our Lord. Well, there are plenty of passages, as you say, of this. but you ignore them claiming Jesus wasn't speaking literally, and not doing this means _you will have no life in you_
You have faith, been saved then ignore what your Lord told you to do, even though you have _accepted_ Him as your Lord. Who is unbiblical and who is not.
Your problem is if you wish to do this then you have to have a _priest_ Which requires *Holy Orders,* which you deny, and without a priest you cannot believe in the Sacrament of *Confession,* so that Biblical item is also tossed out. As well as the Biblical *Holy Unction,* *Confirmation,* leaving you with only *baptism* and *marriage,* which you mess marriage up with divorce and the sidelining of God in this sacrament.
52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.
Kind of ironic that Jesus was born in a town that is called. "The house of bread".
Hello, Dr. Copper. I really appreciate your thoughtful videos and meticulous discussion of the issues. You, Pastor Wolfmueller, and the Being Lutheran podcasts hosts have been integral to my return to the faith of my baptism, LCMS. I’ve been studying Roman Catholicism the past few months, as I’m dating a wonderful woman who also happens to be a devout Roman Catholic. It’s been a blessing to discover so many areas of overlap while also discouraging to see areas of serious xisagreement.
After watching so many of your videos, Reason & Theology’s videos, and videos from other Catholic apologists, I share in your frustration that Rome’s development hypothesis and endless distinctions of teaching, doctrine, dogma, etc. seem to make it IMPOSSIBLE to disprove any of their claims. While I can appreciate and, of course, want nuisance, I’m wondering at this point whether there is ANYTHING that could occur TODAY (i.e. ruling out discovery of ancient texts from apostles that states Sola Sceiptura is the truth) that would disprove Rome’s teaching on the Magisterium without also disproving Christianity as a whole (I.e. ruling out discovery of tomb with bones and sign that says “Jesus of Nazareth”). I’m increasingly convinced that even if Pope Francis were to come out tomorrow and say, “As the holy ordained leader of the Church, I declare ex cathedra that Jesus was only God, not man” (I know, dumb example), that Rome could STILL avoid contradiction by simply calling a council, further “clarifying” when the Pope is infallible, then showing that in fact the Pope wasn’t speaking infallibly and that we only needed further development of doctrine to understand things.
With all this said, I’m curious what your thoughts are on Rome’s development hypothesis, in general. Is it your view that Rome can’t have ANY development because it claims to have a living, breathing Magisterium that is guided by the Holy Spirit? That seems just as untenable to me as the sort of seemingly circular reasoning I see in Catholic videos that goes, “Magisterium is infallible, there is appears to be a contradiction in teaching, therefore we need clarification of doctrine that shows there actually isn’t a contradiction.”
Thoughts?
Just wanted to mention that I too was a Lutheran dating a devout Catholic some time ago. It's a tricky situation and I can relate to discovering areas of overlap and disagreement. Wish you all the best!
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 Thanks! I appreciate the advice you shared and, well, your sympathy haha. Those are good questions to ask and ones that I’ve added to the seemingly endless list of things to clarify before making a decision. God bless!
Hi there! I’m a former LCMS convert to Catholicism, and I’d like to encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing with studying Catholicism. Even if you are just trying to prove Catholicism false. It doesn’t hurt to study it anyways. I tried really hard to prove to myself that Catholicism was false, and realized it was the truth and ended up converting in the end 😉. This is not meant to be confrontational in any way. Take care and God bless!
@@bethanyann1060 I think it's interesting how people dive into apologetics looking for the most historically and theologically consistent form of Christianity, and then some end up converting based on their conclusions that X tradition is more consistent than Y.
I think there often comes a point, however, when people realize that *all* traditions have consistency problems to various degrees -- and these internal discrepancies are precisely what allows apologetics to exist. It's an interesting realization.
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 Yes, I see your point. We will find dissenting views here and there in any case, but ultimately the question is, who has the authority to determine which views are correct?
Biggest issue is the false priesthood, and administration of a “sacrifice” at mass, Literal body and blood of Jesus Christ being present in the Mass. Jesus offered Himself one time for all, and sat down at the right hand of God. Lies offered by liars.
It is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice. Jesus is our Paschal Lamb. 1 Corinthians 5:7, John 1:29. The Old Testament Passover sacrifice had to be eaten as part of the sacrifice. Exodus 12:8.
The blood of the covenant was applied to the people. Exodus 24:8. The blood of the new covenant is given through the cup, as Jesus gave to the disciples. Luke 22:20.
Is it possible to be a Reformed Lutheran just like you can be a Reformed Baptist? I feel like I could be a Calutheran.
Nope.
@@DrJordanBCooper Well, I do find that I agree with the Westminster Confession in a broad sense, but there are also many things about Lutheranism that I like. And I really enjoy your content.
@@ethanhocking8229 Thanks! Ultimately, though there are certainly important areas of overlap, the two systems are incompatible.
@@ethanhocking8229 you'll be finding yourself outside the bounds of protestantism soon then.
@@shabushabu1453 How so?
AT 30:00, when discussing the Roman view being inconsistent with the Patristic view, I'd like to see any father pre-Augustine, much less any ante-Nicean father be used as a source. Ken Wilson, one of the leading Augustine scholars today, states emphatically that he was the first to teach anything resembling his view of predestination, which would include the unconditional monergistic conversion model.
No one thinks Ken Wilson is a leading scholar on Augustine other than Leighton Flowers.
Also, at 39:45, it seems to me the Lutherans commit the same fallacy you were attacking the Romanists for earlier, making your own nuanced, perhaps arbitrary distinctions, thus making your view unfalsifiable. Where does the Scripture make a distinct differentiation between "civic righteousness" and "spiritual righteousness"? How do you know Trent was speaking of "spiritual righteousness" rather than "civic righteousness" as what unbelievers are capable of?
@@DrJordanBCooper OK, if someone who WAS an Augustinian expert made the case that Wilson makes, how would you respond to his argument? Are there pre-Augustinian fathers who hold to the Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist view of the will?
@@DrJordanBCooper So, Just to review, Lutherans have no better explanation than do the Reformed as to why their deterministic doctrine was completely absent from church history until a former Manichean introduced it.
Paul's position is that doing works of the Law, which includes works done in conformity to the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, doesn't justify us, but that only God's grace received through faith alone justifies us. The Catholic position that grace enables a person to merit salvation through keeping the moral law is basically a trashing of what Paul taught. Catholics have redefined grace into something which is the opposite of what Scripture teaches. Grace is God's favour in that he sent Christ to atone for our sins, and so salvation is an unmerited gift which can only be received through faith alone, whereas Catholics have redefined grace into a means by which they can merit or earn salvation through works. So Lutherans and Catholics disagree on what constitutes the grace of justification, and therefore it's pointless to even begin to think Christians have anything in common with Catholics. Catholics believe a system of salvation which has no basis in Scripture. They use the same words but mean something different (that some believe in an initial justification through faith alone doesn't alter this fact), so there's no point in dialoguing with them. They're heretics, and they should be rejected as such. No doubt some are open to being corrected, and there will be some true but weak Christians amongst them, but the great majority are heretics. This is what Luther held.
Great analysis on how the Catholic Church is indestructible and free from error
He just showed that the Catholic church changes their mind contradicting their own councils
@@d.rey5743no he said that we have an answer for all his questions and he's upset because we come up with harmonizing hermeneutics
@@isaacdominguez474anyone can harmonize anything by thousands of made up distinctions. A sure mark of falsity.
I was hoping to get to something about the Council of Trent regarding marriage as sacred union and I had to stop when you got to the a point of non-blelievers not being rooted in anything, thus their good works come from some place that is not as good as being in rooted in God somehow? Next....
Man, doc. You're really eliding assurance of a state of grace and assurance of predestination, there. Maybe I'm making "too fine distinctions," but geez, you're not even citing the actual text of Session VI, Chapter 12.
But this is exactly why I cited this:
"For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."
Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to be how Bellarmine understands it. I don't have a citation off hand at the moment, but this is at least how Gerhard understands Bellarmine.
@@DrJordanBCooper Does it really seem likely that the "grace of God" spoken of in the final phrase of which we cannot know with certainty is the same state of grace that absolution efficaciously grants, as was just affirmed earlier in the exact same sentence?
It seems far more likely that the grace of God here spoken of is the same final assurance of which chapter XII speaks. That is, apart from the sacraments (which are themselves supernatural revelations of God), man cannot know simply by the presence of faith that he is either forgiven or that he will persevere. When we look to ourselves, we shouldn't look to our faith, but to man considered in "himself and his own weakness and indisposition," and in that weakness return to the grace of God found in the sacraments.
I understand that Lutherans would never describe find assurance in the presence of fiduciary trust as a form of looking to ourselves for assurance, but that's exactly how the council fathers understood it.
@@eatingchaos The turns of phrase are difficult for me because I'm not used to them; however are you saying that Trent agrees with the Lutheran understanding that when God proclaims our adoption in Baptism we can reject Him and loose it (so we can only have assurance ofthe truth of God's Word and not of our final destination)?
So we can trust that in the Absolution God removes our sins, yet if we abandon that trust our sins stay?
If so, I'm very confused because I'm not sure I've heard anything that anathematises Luther or Lutherans. So why was Luther excommunicated? And why's he not been reinstated?
@@j.g.4942 In Catholic teaching, God doesn't only proclaim our adoption at baptism, but actually effects it. We certainly ought to sincerely trust that in absolution God speaks through is minister. And yes, God removes our sins at the absolution in the sacrament of confession, and if we despair by abandoning our trust in God we sin against hope, and that is (often, probably) a mortal sin. So, when we fall into uncertainty by looking to our own sins, we return to confession to be restored to a state of grace, or be justified.
The official reasons for Luther's excommunication were given in Leo X's 1520 papal bull Exsurge Domini, which you can find online pretty easily. Those statements still beg the question as to whether Luther was fairly represented on any or all points, and also whether his case was fairly heard. The Vatican is much more charitable today, and it's a shame that it wasn't at the time.
Nevertheless, Luther certainly held positions and advocated actions that are contrary to the universal teaching of the Church. Those would include his burning of a duly authorized plenary indulgence (however corruptly promoted); his advocating against sacramental status for the majority of the sacraments at both the Leipzig Disputation and in the 1520 On the Babylonian Captivity, which had been enumerated at at an ecumenical council (the Fourth or Great Lateran Council) and which are also held to be sacraments by Eastern Christians; his denial of the sacrifice of the mass (the language of which goes back through the whole history of the liturgy) and of the third principle part of the sacrament of penance (the practice of which goes back through the whole history of sacramental confession); and his encouraging German princes and other state officials to take control of the church from the bishops, successors to the apostles, in his 1520 Appeal to the German Nobility. These certainly proved the tipping point, and would have gotten anyone, up to and including a cardinal, excommunicated.
@@eatingchaos God's Word actually effects adoption in Lutheran teaching too, I forget sometimes that it's not always obvious that what God says happens ("let there be light"). There's that old Lutheran axiom, the Word of the Lord Stands Forever (VDMA).
However, I think we might say abandoning trust in God's absolution is mortal sin (akin to calling God a liar from 1 John 1) and is at least part of Judas Iscariot's failure. Which seems to me to have been the point of Luther's argumentation and apology; that others did not trust God's proclamations and promises (particularly of Christ's victory over sin, death and the devil conveyed according to the Word in Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist) and thus insinuated that God was a liar.
Yet I agree, it seems to me too that there was much speaking past people, and many failures to listen. I hope that in coming years the Holy Spirit guides the church in all those issues of translation and communication since God's Word spread from His people's ancient language to the first non-Greek speaker.
For instance I was speaking with a Roman Catholic regarding Holy Communion; about how we participate in a timeless event, with us at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, every altar, and the Most Glorious Wedding Feast of the Lamb; and he said that's what Roman Catholic mean when they say 're-sacrifice'. Here I thought it was a plain reading of re-/again sacrifice/give up, so something like 'kill Jesus again but they couldn't have meant that'. Now I find that language shifts and we need to listen better.
Faith without work’s IS dead. Paul was not attacking work’s of charity as the protestant mistakenly believe,he was attacking work’s of the Law-a totally different and thing. But because protestant’s especially fundamentalists and evangelicals are arrogant they don’t see this. There’s NO salvation outside the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded TWO THOUSAND year’s ago NOT 500 as in the satanic revolt against the mystical body of Christ on earth the holy Catholic Church. Watch the warning or illumination of conscience by Christine Watkins! Then The Papacy can not be destroyed. Then Don’t call protestant’s Christian.
James also says "...I will show you my faith by my works."
'BY' is the key word here. He doesn't say faith AND works, no, works are a way of DISPLAYING faith.
James says that THROUGH our works, we know that the saving faith is genuine. It isn't however the works themselves that save us, they are a sign that we have genuine faith.
If James was suggesting that works were necessary for salvation, then he would be contradicting Paul in Romans 4, telling us that Abraham had only to believe, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham was saved before any works.
@@alexwrexactly
There is no English word which captures what the essence of what is usually translated to mean faith. Catholicism existed before the English language existed, it was founded right in the middle of classical antiquity in Roman Judea by some Jews . The Latin word fide and the Hebrew word emunah or fide captures the true meaning of what Catholics generally mean by faith in a theological sense. The closest approximation to what Catholics mean by fide or Jews mean by emunah would be fidelity, duty, trust or loyalty depending on how the word is used, faith is a poor translation of the meaning. The best definition of faith is captured by the phrase “a duty of support”. Unfortunately, Tyndale’s translation of the word influenced by Luther has stuck around.
What did fide mean to the Romans? It was a duty to the emperor owed by patricians to support and maintain the temples of the Romanized Hellenic deities. This was how Romas demonstrated their fide.
I don't see how that disagrees with the Lutheran idea of Faith
As many rabbis have explained emunah is the our response to the Almighty by being his hands and feet, doing what He wills and by doing our duty towards Him, It is duty of support the work of the Almighty in the world we live in. You are correct it does not mean faith as believing in something, you can believe but that does not matter, many people believe, the Almighty cares about what you do in this world and doing the things you were supposed to do.
@@user-sm5tu9dq6p One is justified not by faith but (fide)lity.
Perhaps I misheard Jordan Cooper on this but he implies that cooperation with grace is something new from Vatican II. If this is what he implied, he is wrong.
Salvation is a process of cooperating with grace. One does not suddenly believe, but it too is a process, a work of grace with which one cooperates. G-d calls us to fidelity, not merely faith as in belief. This is borne out in Session 6 of the Council of Trent in various canons including IX.
_CANON IX.If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema_
One has to read the text in Latin to understand how the Council Fathers are thinking and how they understand fide
Canon XXVII.-Si quis dixerit, nullum esse mortale peccatum, nisi infidelitatis; aut nullo alio, quantumvis gravi et enormi, præterquam infidelitatis, peccato, semel acceptam gratiam amitti: anathema sit.
CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity: let him be anathema. (translation)
Fide is NOT Faith, it is fidelity. Language is the issue here. What the Romans understood to be fide when St. Paul writes to them is not what they would have understood as faith to us.
@@rkohan1096 I agree, my father was an ethnic Jew, both his parents were Jews, my mother is most likely of apostate dispora Jewish as their name seems to indicate that they at one time nesiim. i learnt about this at shiva at shul of emunah and then sometime later at a Hebrew Catholic facebook group and then sometime in October I was researching for an article on atheism and came across it again on Chabad. Emunah is translated as faith, this is a very bad translation of the word. I knew fide was no faith because I had studied classical history. Even our modern hisotrians have got classical history incorrect as they do not seem to understand what the Romans meant take for example the cult of the emperor, it has nothing to do with emperor worship
Roman society was divided between the patrician and plebian classes. The patricians were the ruling class for the most part, all the senators were patricians, the aristocracy of the city of Rome. The rest of the citizens of Rome were plebeians. The patricians were Hellenized Romans influenced by the Greeks. Their deities were the Romanized Hellenic deities such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Mercury, Juno, Neptune and other such deities. The plebeians had the Sabine, Latin, Etruscan, Italic deities such as Ceres, Liber, Libera, Flora, Fortuna, Minerva etc. There was also much crossover such as with Quirinus, Vesta, Janus etc.
The patricians belonged to the cult of the emperor, meaning that they worshipped the same deities as the emperor did, in other words, practised the same religio as the emperor. Being members of the patrician class meant that you owed a duty towards the emperor which was fide. This duty was demonstrated by supporting, maintaining and providing for the temples attended by the flamines.
Catholics and Lutherans are mistaken about original sin, especially if they embrace inherited guilt, which has all the logic of a square-circle. Luther is just wrong about total depravity and forensic justification too. Luther was profoundly influenced by the late Augustine and by the voluntarisms of the late medieval period. Its not the Bible- its the worst aspects of tradition.
I don’t believe either teach “inherited guilt.” If you have seen a Catholic document teaching this, I’d like to read it.
This is the doctrine of original sin: ”Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-“
Romans 5:12 RSV-C
So by the first sin (the origin of sin, the original sin) sin and death came into the world. All men sinned and inherited unrighteousness.
Loosely dogmatic